This afternoon, the future of the WCHA playoffs came to light thanks to reporting by Shane Frederick of the Mankato Free Press and Jack Hittinger of the Bemidji Pioneer. In it, we also may have gotten our first public glimpse into one of the reasons why the NCHC happened.
In two years, after the monumental shift in conferences in Western college hockey, the WCHA will have a nine-team tournament. The top seed will receive a bye to the WCHA Final Five.
The big news, though, is that Alaska Anchorage and Alaska Fairbanks will play in the first round every year unless one is a top seed.
The league obviously is worried about paying for two Alaska flights (either a team traveling up to Alaska or sending an Alaskan team to the lower 48) on a week’s notice. The postseason tournament is supposed to be the big money-maker for the league and it could end up losing money.
However, the league is throwing the integrity of the tournament out the window in order to save money.
When the NCHC split happened, I wrote this in a Herald piece:
A source told the Herald that when business was conducted in the Western Collegiate Hockey Association, there were often times two blocks of voting.
The schools with larger budgets typically wanted to spend money, invest and try new things. Schools with smaller budgets often resisted.
With Minnesota and Wisconsin departing for the Big Ten Hockey Conference, the smaller-budget schools take over control of the voting block. This caused athletic directors with larger budgets to worry about the future of the conference.
-July 10, 2011
The decision to save money with the Alaska schools while potentially creating strange matchups in the first round (UAA or UAF could be on the road as a three seed and if they are both in the bottom half, the five seed will have to travel instead of host) may be the first public look at this scenario. There’s no way athletic directors at UND, Omaha, Denver, etc., would have gone for this.
Was it this specific scenario that the NCHC schools were worried about? No. They didn’t even know Fairbanks would be in the league at the time the left. But it’s scenarios like this that they were worried about.
One has to wonder if AK-Fairbanks would have even joined the WCHA but for UND, Omaha, Denver, Colorado College, Duluth, and St. Cloud’s departure. Otherwise, the loss of two big budget schools could have been replaced with two more—Miami and Western Michigan.
What schools were in which voting blocks?
But this playoff format is rather ridiculous.
Hold on there, with this logic UND could have been the home team for every playoff game they had. Big $$$.
UND could have been a home playoff team every year just the same as the system exists today. However, the new playoff setup adds an extra wrinkle. If UND finished in fifth place (middle of the pack) one year, and the two Alaska schools finished lower, UND would be on the road for the first round against the number four seed.
Plus, say the two Alaska schools ended up finishing 8th and 9th in the league. You’ve just guaranteed that one of the lowest two seeds in the league will go to the Final Five and, in doing so, you’ve pretty much assured the number one team of getting to the Championship game.
In fact, this guarantees that one of the Alaska schools will go to the Final Five each year; neither of these schools travel well given the distance and expense involved with getting here and doing so on short notice would be even more difficult.
Fascinating decision-making and I can see why the NCHC was formed if this is the type of logic that will win the day in the WCHA without the big boys.
Well, none of this would be happening if the B10 did not start their own league. At some point down the road I think we will all see that tearing up the WCHA will be a big mistake. I say this with regard to college hockey in general. We are already seeing highly recruited players bolting for major Jr hockey. Keep in mind college hockey is a niche sport from a national perspective. I truly believe there will be a number of smaller schools dropping their hockey programs in upcoming years. We shall see I guess….
Ditto
We may also see other programs add D1 hockey, as expensive as it may be. Money and time.
Robert, ridiculous yes, but these were the cards the WCHA were dealt. The Alaskan schools were the elephant in the room when it came to the Final Five and the preliminary rounds, and the conference did what was in their best interest financially. Flying anywhere last minute, much less a hockey team to Anchorage or Fairbanks is far from the cheapest mode of transport. Ironically, these same cost concerns are supposedly why the league is so hesitant to add Huntsville despite the fact UAH is willing to help foot the bill.
Now the nWCHA is looking at holding the tournament in Toledo, Ohio or Grand Rapids Michigan.
The future of teams are going to be in limbo. UAH Chargers will not be accepted and may be the first to fold. Some Alaska schools may follow as I hear they could play each other as much as nine times in ONE season. Lame.
The nWCHA should expand to 12 teams as this get rid of the problem of having teams go to Alaska as much.
Two teams Pennsylvania have expressed interest in moving to 18 scholarships.
Mercyhurst and Robert Morris would be great additions to the nWCHA. Also, Bowling Green would have close rivals.
It seems like they could make the schedule so that every year the alaska teams have a bye week before the playoffs so that there is more time to make flight arrangements or something. They really can do better than this